Hamilton was in contention for the title unlike Button, it was an abject failure of the team to fully back his title campaign that lead to him leaving the team.

Remember Canada 2011 when Hamilton tried to pass Button but ended up squeezed into the wall and out of the race, Button won the race and Hamilton was seen clapping Button's win and was pleased for him, were was the excuse from Hamilton so I believe you are wrong.

and Alonso's never praised his team mate? er, OK

Like I said, no real difference

I just disproved what you said in respect to Hamilton which has nothing to do with what Alonso may or may not have done.

You have a strange concept of proof.

Still don't see any difference

You said that Hamilton needs to make an excuse when he gets beat by his teammate.

and him going into the wall was a pretty big circumstance, wouldn't you say?

Twittergate is perhaps the most famous example and please don't try to pretend that he never does this. They are not as dissimilar as you try to portray

People have been discussing Alonso's state of mind in this particular incident, which itself set off a chain of events which heavily influenced Alonso's legacy, so it's relevant. And unfortunately Hamilton is involved in this, if only as a catalyst. Where the discussion appears to be getting bogged down is that some are getting hung up on blame, whereas in reality the only real relevance is to point out how it may have affected Alonso's mind and subsequent actions. Who was right or wrong is another discussion entirely

In any case I don't think the Hungary incident was the trigger that tore the team in two that season, Alonso's mental capitulation had occurred much sooner. He was all over the place in the Canadian GP with several uncharacteristic off-track excursions; I could only conclude that it was all frustration at being behind Hamilton because I've never seen him drive that badly before or since. Then there was the outburst over the radio in the next race in Indy where he demanded that the team apply team orders to give him the win. For his part Hamilton was noticeably peeved at being told to hold station behind Alonso in Monaco and was clearly not prepared to play second fiddle and was only going to retaliate to Alonso's attempts to engineer himself number 1 status in the team. I'd rather see Hungary as the final straw in a tit-for-tat battle for supremacy that had been escalating for the entire year. Probably ever since Hamilton stuck it round the outside of Alonso at Turn 1 in Australia.

Indeed which I was trying to explain with Hungary being the tipping point not just an isolated thing that happened out of the blue.

The battle for supremacy was Alonso wanting #1 status and Hamilton wanting equal status, I can never understand why perhaps Hamilton himself could ever be portrayed as a villain in all of this. I can understand a driver earning #1 status by simply being better but when 2 drivers are close to equal it's so wrong for one driver expecting to be given #1 status when it's not even in a contract.

Then I'm sorry but I'm afraid those Hamilton-shaped blinkers are working overtime. Both Hamilton and Alonso were just as volatile, not to mention infantile, as each other and share the blame for the way things turned out between the drivers.

In the case of the specific point being discussed, if you really cannot see that Hamilton taking matters into his own hands - effectively against both Alonso and the team, as the "preference" rota had already been agreed - was in any way not selfish or provocative, then it's clear that nothing Hamilton will ever do will be wrong to you. Just because he felt put out that it went wrong for him in the previous race (which, by the way, had nothing to do with Alonso anyway), doesn't mean he can appropriate what wasn't his in the following race. This is pretty basic stuff and I'm surprised anyone would seek to pretend it wasn't wrong to do so.

None of this is to excuse Alonso's own stupid reaction and escalation, which is on him. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hamilton acted whiter than white in all of this and was somehow a completely innocent passenger

edit: and BTW, one of the claims being made is that part of the reason Alonso was so upset was because he had been verbally promised by Ron before joining that he would be made number one driver. He was so worked up because he felt this promise was not being kept. So while it may not have been written into his contract - although quite how we know that for sure is unclear to me - Alonso clearly felt that this was an agreement that was not being honoured

For fans of Alonso they will tell you he's the best of the current generation based on what they think should have happened, and not what actually happened.

For the neutrals they look at him a different way and admire his talent.

In the previous generation the Iceman was seen as the next best thing (as he gave Schumacher a tough time but Mclaren/Mercedes let him down) though Alonso won the titles then.

In this generation you have Vettel and Hamilton, and I wonder how people feel Alonso is better than this guys, both of this guys have a lot of things above Alonso asides driving talent which all 3 have in spades.

I see people saying Alonso was unlucky et all, but miss the fact that somehow Vettel and Hamilton go to teams and drive them forward, whereas with Alonso the opposite happens it cant be a coincidence.The same plans Ferrari showed to Vettel, Alonso had knowledge of it but felt Mclaren was better, Mclaren last real push for glory was in '12.

One thing people like Schumacher and Vettel understood quickly in F1 is that beating your team mate is good for a driver in midfield who wants to progress to a front running car, if you want to be a serial winner you work towards having a grid beating car and compete for championships, with Alonso its what he can do with someone else's hardwork.

Hamilton too was stuck in this Alonso kind of mindset of beating team mates until he looked at the numbers Vettel was racking up and realised there is no championship for it outside of your fans saying it.

So for his legacy he will be remembered for what could have been not what actually happened, which has always been par for the course with Alonso.

Hamilton's mindset actually has always been on winning titles rather than beating teammates, 2011 being a prime example of him losing the plot when Vettel set off like a steam train and then out of desperation Hamilton tried to join Red Bull, at that point of the season he was beating Button, Button was never a concern for him.

However I would say Alonso does prioritise beating teammates, has that ever been detrimental to team harmony apart from 2007 I couldn't say but I wonder why words like he can be divisive within teams by some F1 journalists is used, that's quite a strong word to use although the context of why it's said is never fully explained.

The divisive driver is the only one in recent memory to have been taken back by two teams. Two out of three teams (if we discount Minardi) actually felt he was ok, and they were happy with his teamwork. I think he just fitted the character... we all love to simplify and like people behaving as expected. And if they don't we need to pretend they do. Much easier to deal with...

Both teams were in the midfield when they took him back and not in great shape.

Renault were only a year away from there back to back championships. Hardly hopeless. The whole Alonso is bad for a team thing is well over blown and I think used as an excuse from team bosses who simply don't want two roosters in the hen house. He's had 11 different team mates in F1 and he's only ever had an issue with one of them.

Renault were not in a great place when he went back there also they were not overly impressed that Alonso just used them as a stop gap, no sooner was he at Renault he was negotiating to go to Ferrari.

Alonso didn't have a great relationship with Kimi and even Massa who is very complimentary about Alonso has a driver has said that he has a tendency to divide a team, Alonso is perfectly fine so long as a team is pulling 100% for him.

Alonso's book comes out in a few months and we'll just be doing it all again anyway when he gives his version of it so I'll avoid the 2007 talk until then and move swiftly on...

So it sounds like he's doing an Indy test with Andretti-Honda next month or October to get a feel for the 2018 aero kit on a road course so I don't think we'll hear any confirmation about IndyCar until after that but I hope that's what he does but his WEC contract could still be a sticky point for either Honda or Toyota or both. Got the go ahead for the test though so hopefully it's all good.

I thought there was some kind of restraining order that neither side, Alonso or McLaren could discuss what happened in 2007?

Is there? Certain things might be no-go like details of his release and Spygate but he's bound to talk about the decision to join, the tyre/brake issues and his relationship with the team and Lewis in some form you'd think.

People have been discussing Alonso's state of mind in this particular incident, which itself set off a chain of events which heavily influenced Alonso's legacy, so it's relevant. And unfortunately Hamilton is involved in this, if only as a catalyst. Where the discussion appears to be getting bogged down is that some are getting hung up on blame, whereas in reality the only real relevance is to point out how it may have affected Alonso's mind and subsequent actions. Who was right or wrong is another discussion entirely

In any case I don't think the Hungary incident was the trigger that tore the team in two that season, Alonso's mental capitulation had occurred much sooner. He was all over the place in the Canadian GP with several uncharacteristic off-track excursions; I could only conclude that it was all frustration at being behind Hamilton because I've never seen him drive that badly before or since. Then there was the outburst over the radio in the next race in Indy where he demanded that the team apply team orders to give him the win. For his part Hamilton was noticeably peeved at being told to hold station behind Alonso in Monaco and was clearly not prepared to play second fiddle and was only going to retaliate to Alonso's attempts to engineer himself number 1 status in the team. I'd rather see Hungary as the final straw in a tit-for-tat battle for supremacy that had been escalating for the entire year. Probably ever since Hamilton stuck it round the outside of Alonso at Turn 1 in Australia.

Indeed which I was trying to explain with Hungary being the tipping point not just an isolated thing that happened out of the blue.

The battle for supremacy was Alonso wanting #1 status and Hamilton wanting equal status, I can never understand why perhaps Hamilton himself could ever be portrayed as a villain in all of this. I can understand a driver earning #1 status by simply being better but when 2 drivers are close to equal it's so wrong for one driver expecting to be given #1 status when it's not even in a contract.

Then I'm sorry but I'm afraid those Hamilton-shaped blinkers are working overtime. Both Hamilton and Alonso were just as volatile, not to mention infantile, as each other and share the blame for the way things turned out between the drivers.

In the case of the specific point being discussed, if you really cannot see that Hamilton taking matters into his own hands - effectively against both Alonso and the team, as the "preference" rota had already been agreed - was in any way not selfish or provocative, then it's clear that nothing Hamilton will ever do will be wrong to you. Just because he felt put out that it went wrong for him in the previous race (which, by the way, had nothing to do with Alonso anyway), doesn't mean he can appropriate what wasn't his in the following race. This is pretty basic stuff and I'm surprised anyone would seek to pretend it wasn't wrong to do so.

None of this is to excuse Alonso's own stupid reaction and escalation, which is on him. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hamilton acted whiter than white in all of this and was somehow a completely innocent passenger

edit: and BTW, one of the claims being made is that part of the reason Alonso was so upset was because he had been verbally promised by Ron before joining that he would be made number one driver. He was so worked up because he felt this promise was not being kept. So while it may not have been written into his contract - although quite how we know that for sure is unclear to me - Alonso clearly felt that this was an agreement that was not being honoured

So you was happy with a situation were an equally talented driver has to ride shotgun for his teammate from day 1?

Alonso's book comes out in a few months and we'll just be doing it all again anyway when he gives his version of it so I'll avoid the 2007 talk until then and move swiftly on...

So it sounds like he's doing an Indy test with Andretti-Honda next month or October to get a feel for the 2018 aero kit on a road course so I don't think we'll hear any confirmation about IndyCar until after that but I hope that's what he does but his WEC contract could still be a sticky point for either Honda or Toyota or both. Got the go ahead for the test though so hopefully it's all good.

I thought there was some kind of restraining order that neither side, Alonso or McLaren could discuss what happened in 2007?

Is there? Certain things might be no-go like details of his release and Spygate but he's bound to talk about the decision to join, the tyre/brake issues and his relationship with the team and Lewis in some form you'd think.

Well I heard it said, it's been 11 years now and what have we heard?

How many autobiographies has he released since then?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Alonso's book comes out in a few months and we'll just be doing it all again anyway when he gives his version of it so I'll avoid the 2007 talk until then and move swiftly on...

So it sounds like he's doing an Indy test with Andretti-Honda next month or October to get a feel for the 2018 aero kit on a road course so I don't think we'll hear any confirmation about IndyCar until after that but I hope that's what he does but his WEC contract could still be a sticky point for either Honda or Toyota or both. Got the go ahead for the test though so hopefully it's all good.

I thought there was some kind of restraining order that neither side, Alonso or McLaren could discuss what happened in 2007?

Is there? Certain things might be no-go like details of his release and Spygate but he's bound to talk about the decision to join, the tyre/brake issues and his relationship with the team and Lewis in some form you'd think.

So you was happy with a situation were an equally talented driver has to ride shotgun for his teammate from day 1?

This is part of the legacy of Alonso.

Poker, do you honestly think that's what Zoue is saying here?

Zoue is saying how it was not giving his opinion on the situation.

How could Zoue know exactly how it was?

I know things about that season that he clearly doesn't know and there's other things I don't know about, he's seeing the tip of an iceberg and from that he can deduce the landscape, any back story I come up with is dismissed, there was so many things going on that both Alonso and McLaren had to sign a non disclosure agreement.

People have been discussing Alonso's state of mind in this particular incident, which itself set off a chain of events which heavily influenced Alonso's legacy, so it's relevant. And unfortunately Hamilton is involved in this, if only as a catalyst. Where the discussion appears to be getting bogged down is that some are getting hung up on blame, whereas in reality the only real relevance is to point out how it may have affected Alonso's mind and subsequent actions. Who was right or wrong is another discussion entirely

In any case I don't think the Hungary incident was the trigger that tore the team in two that season, Alonso's mental capitulation had occurred much sooner. He was all over the place in the Canadian GP with several uncharacteristic off-track excursions; I could only conclude that it was all frustration at being behind Hamilton because I've never seen him drive that badly before or since. Then there was the outburst over the radio in the next race in Indy where he demanded that the team apply team orders to give him the win. For his part Hamilton was noticeably peeved at being told to hold station behind Alonso in Monaco and was clearly not prepared to play second fiddle and was only going to retaliate to Alonso's attempts to engineer himself number 1 status in the team. I'd rather see Hungary as the final straw in a tit-for-tat battle for supremacy that had been escalating for the entire year. Probably ever since Hamilton stuck it round the outside of Alonso at Turn 1 in Australia.

Indeed which I was trying to explain with Hungary being the tipping point not just an isolated thing that happened out of the blue.

The battle for supremacy was Alonso wanting #1 status and Hamilton wanting equal status, I can never understand why perhaps Hamilton himself could ever be portrayed as a villain in all of this. I can understand a driver earning #1 status by simply being better but when 2 drivers are close to equal it's so wrong for one driver expecting to be given #1 status when it's not even in a contract.

Then I'm sorry but I'm afraid those Hamilton-shaped blinkers are working overtime. Both Hamilton and Alonso were just as volatile, not to mention infantile, as each other and share the blame for the way things turned out between the drivers.

In the case of the specific point being discussed, if you really cannot see that Hamilton taking matters into his own hands - effectively against both Alonso and the team, as the "preference" rota had already been agreed - was in any way not selfish or provocative, then it's clear that nothing Hamilton will ever do will be wrong to you. Just because he felt put out that it went wrong for him in the previous race (which, by the way, had nothing to do with Alonso anyway), doesn't mean he can appropriate what wasn't his in the following race. This is pretty basic stuff and I'm surprised anyone would seek to pretend it wasn't wrong to do so.

None of this is to excuse Alonso's own stupid reaction and escalation, which is on him. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hamilton acted whiter than white in all of this and was somehow a completely innocent passenger

edit: and BTW, one of the claims being made is that part of the reason Alonso was so upset was because he had been verbally promised by Ron before joining that he would be made number one driver. He was so worked up because he felt this promise was not being kept. So while it may not have been written into his contract - although quite how we know that for sure is unclear to me - Alonso clearly felt that this was an agreement that was not being honoured

The problem with this alleged verbal agreement between Dennis and Alonso is that we have no idea what was actually promised, we only have Alonso's interpretation of it. And this is a general problem when dissecting what happened within McLaren that year; so much of what was said and done was behind closed doors and never reached the public domain.

From my interpretation of what was said publicly, I agree with what poker has been saying in that Alonso appears to have been the main antagonist here: he felt he should have the undisputed number 1 status within the team that he enjoyed at Renault. Hamilton was largely standing his ground and trying to ensure that equal treatment was maintained, there is no evidence we have seen that Hamilton too was trying to make himself the number 1 driver. This doesn't mean Hamilton was an innocent party, I'm not going to defend his actions in Hungary and I'm sure some words were said after Monaco as well (incidentally a team order I thought was correct in the circumstances and not an indication of favourable treatment for Alonso), but if he hadn't stood his ground and played Alonso at his own game then perhaps Alonso would have won himself the favourable status he craved. Ultimately if your opponent is fighting dirty then you have to respond in kind or you're probably going to lose.

I thought there was some kind of restraining order that neither side, Alonso or McLaren could discuss what happened in 2007?

Is there? Certain things might be no-go like details of his release and Spygate but he's bound to talk about the decision to join, the tyre/brake issues and his relationship with the team and Lewis in some form you'd think.

Well I heard it said, it's been 11 years now and what have we heard?

How many autobiographies has he released since then?

Such things could easily leak out.

Maybe they did. Maybe there's more too. Not really going to know until we've read the book, are we?

Not sure what the issue is tbh.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

So you was happy with a situation were an equally talented driver has to ride shotgun for his teammate from day 1?

This is part of the legacy of Alonso.

Poker, do you honestly think that's what Zoue is saying here?

Zoue is saying how it was not giving his opinion on the situation.

How could Zoue know exactly how it was?

I know things about that season that he clearly doesn't know and there's other things I don't know about, he's seeing the tip of an iceberg and from that he can deduce the landscape, any back story I come up with is dismissed, there was so many things going on that both Alonso and McLaren had to sign a non disclosure agreement.

I doubt you know more than others. You take an educated guess, same as everyone else. All I've discussed is things that were widely reported at the time and to be frank I've stated this more than once. I've never claimed any special knowledge and as regards back story you've only come with a justification for Hamilton's actions - no great surprise there - but are seemingly unable to understand that whatever justification he may have felt he was still the one breaking the agreement, which in turn was bound to have implications on the other side of the garage. Alonso didn't block Hamilton on a whim, did he?

People have been discussing Alonso's state of mind in this particular incident, which itself set off a chain of events which heavily influenced Alonso's legacy, so it's relevant. And unfortunately Hamilton is involved in this, if only as a catalyst. Where the discussion appears to be getting bogged down is that some are getting hung up on blame, whereas in reality the only real relevance is to point out how it may have affected Alonso's mind and subsequent actions. Who was right or wrong is another discussion entirely

In any case I don't think the Hungary incident was the trigger that tore the team in two that season, Alonso's mental capitulation had occurred much sooner. He was all over the place in the Canadian GP with several uncharacteristic off-track excursions; I could only conclude that it was all frustration at being behind Hamilton because I've never seen him drive that badly before or since. Then there was the outburst over the radio in the next race in Indy where he demanded that the team apply team orders to give him the win. For his part Hamilton was noticeably peeved at being told to hold station behind Alonso in Monaco and was clearly not prepared to play second fiddle and was only going to retaliate to Alonso's attempts to engineer himself number 1 status in the team. I'd rather see Hungary as the final straw in a tit-for-tat battle for supremacy that had been escalating for the entire year. Probably ever since Hamilton stuck it round the outside of Alonso at Turn 1 in Australia.

Indeed which I was trying to explain with Hungary being the tipping point not just an isolated thing that happened out of the blue.

The battle for supremacy was Alonso wanting #1 status and Hamilton wanting equal status, I can never understand why perhaps Hamilton himself could ever be portrayed as a villain in all of this. I can understand a driver earning #1 status by simply being better but when 2 drivers are close to equal it's so wrong for one driver expecting to be given #1 status when it's not even in a contract.

Then I'm sorry but I'm afraid those Hamilton-shaped blinkers are working overtime. Both Hamilton and Alonso were just as volatile, not to mention infantile, as each other and share the blame for the way things turned out between the drivers.

In the case of the specific point being discussed, if you really cannot see that Hamilton taking matters into his own hands - effectively against both Alonso and the team, as the "preference" rota had already been agreed - was in any way not selfish or provocative, then it's clear that nothing Hamilton will ever do will be wrong to you. Just because he felt put out that it went wrong for him in the previous race (which, by the way, had nothing to do with Alonso anyway), doesn't mean he can appropriate what wasn't his in the following race. This is pretty basic stuff and I'm surprised anyone would seek to pretend it wasn't wrong to do so.

None of this is to excuse Alonso's own stupid reaction and escalation, which is on him. But let's not rewrite history and pretend that Hamilton acted whiter than white in all of this and was somehow a completely innocent passenger

edit: and BTW, one of the claims being made is that part of the reason Alonso was so upset was because he had been verbally promised by Ron before joining that he would be made number one driver. He was so worked up because he felt this promise was not being kept. So while it may not have been written into his contract - although quite how we know that for sure is unclear to me - Alonso clearly felt that this was an agreement that was not being honoured

The problem with this alleged verbal agreement between Dennis and Alonso is that we have no idea what was actually promised, we only have Alonso's interpretation of it. And this is a general problem when dissecting what happened within McLaren that year; so much of what was said and done was behind closed doors and never reached the public domain.

From my interpretation of what was said publicly, I agree with what poker has been saying in that Alonso appears to have been the main antagonist here: he felt he should have the undisputed number 1 status within the team that he enjoyed at Renault. Hamilton was largely standing his ground and trying to ensure that equal treatment was maintained, there is no evidence we have seen that Hamilton too was trying to make himself the number 1 driver. This doesn't mean Hamilton was an innocent party, I'm not going to defend his actions in Hungary and I'm sure some words were said after Monaco as well (incidentally a team order I thought was correct in the circumstances and not an indication of favourable treatment for Alonso), but if he hadn't stood his ground and played Alonso at his own game then perhaps Alonso would have won himself the favourable status he craved. Ultimately if your opponent is fighting dirty then you have to respond in kind or you're probably going to lose.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Maybe the mods need to set up a topic so Alonso vs Hamilton 2007 can be argued to death there.

it's 100% relevant to the legacy he left because it arguably shaped his career and was a pivotal moment in defining his future within his F1. Hindsight would suggest that without the events of 2007 escalating the way they did Alonso - and by extension Hamilton and possibly even Vettel - would have had a very different career and the stats would be unrecognisable from what they are now

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I am curious too.

In following this thread, do people really doubt that Don likely told Alonso that he would be #1 at McLaren in order to get the 2x reigning WDC to come to the team? Especially as one reads all the "Alonso insists on #1 status" post here in the forum, surely he would have required as much from Dennis?

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I am curious too.

In following this thread, do people really doubt that Don likely told Alonso that he would be #1 at McLaren in order to get the 2x reigning WDC to come to the team? Especially as one reads all the "Alonso insists on #1 status" post here in the forum, surely he would have required as much from Dennis?

I doubt it, yes. Knowing Ron as we all do, I imagine he used his finest politician-speak to imply that Alonso would be #1 driver without actually promising anything. Or rather Ron may have simply promised him that he had better prospects of long-term title success at McLaren than at Renault and the rest was just assumptions on Alonso's part. We have no proof of what was and wasn't promised and I'm not prepared to simply take Alonso's word for it.

I honestly don't think it is in Ron's nature to so openly use lies and deception to get his way. He is more subtle than that.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I believe Alonso started it with a misplaced belief that the team would revolve around him in the same manner that Renault had done. And when that favoured status didn't materialise he started to try to engineer the situation himself, the most ridiculous example coming at Indy with his demand that Hamilton be ordered to let him past. For Hamilton to react so vehemently to events at Monaco there must have already been some tensions simmering, I wouldn't see it as a rational response even for an unpredictable character as Hamilton.

This is all speculation of course. As I said before none of us really know what went on behind closed doors, this is merely my interpretation of events.

Is there? Certain things might be no-go like details of his release and Spygate but he's bound to talk about the decision to join, the tyre/brake issues and his relationship with the team and Lewis in some form you'd think.

Well I heard it said, it's been 11 years now and what have we heard?

How many autobiographies has he released since then?

Such things could easily leak out.

Maybe they did. Maybe there's more too. Not really going to know until we've read the book, are we?

Not sure what the issue is tbh.

Why do you think I'm making an issue out of it, I'm just stating that non disclosure agreements were signed by both Alonso and McLaren.

So you was happy with a situation were an equally talented driver has to ride shotgun for his teammate from day 1?

This is part of the legacy of Alonso.

Poker, do you honestly think that's what Zoue is saying here?

Zoue is saying how it was not giving his opinion on the situation.

How could Zoue know exactly how it was?

I know things about that season that he clearly doesn't know and there's other things I don't know about, he's seeing the tip of an iceberg and from that he can deduce the landscape, any back story I come up with is dismissed, there was so many things going on that both Alonso and McLaren had to sign a non disclosure agreement.

I doubt you know more than others. You take an educated guess, same as everyone else. All I've discussed is things that were widely reported at the time and to be frank I've stated this more than once. I've never claimed any special knowledge and as regards back story you've only come with a justification for Hamilton's actions - no great surprise there - but are seemingly unable to understand that whatever justification he may have felt he was still the one breaking the agreement, which in turn was bound to have implications on the other side of the garage. Alonso didn't block Hamilton on a whim, did he?

I never said that Hamilton was blameless in Hungary, Dennis himself said that both drivers were not blameless.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Well I would say more so Massa at Ferrari, that was the kind of model that Alonso wanted at McLaren.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

Such things have been discussed before regarding Monaco were Hamilton's car was loaded with so much fuel for qualifying that he was unable to get pole, were Hamilton was told they put more fuel in his car because he was on a different strategy to Alonso, a 1 stop opposed to a 2 stop, then they changed Hamilton's strategy to a 2 stop during the race because of concerns about a theoretical SC, all in all that gift wrapped the weekend for Alonso.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I am curious too.

In following this thread, do people really doubt that Don likely told Alonso that he would be #1 at McLaren in order to get the 2x reigning WDC to come to the team? Especially as one reads all the "Alonso insists on #1 status" post here in the forum, surely he would have required as much from Dennis?

Alonso left Renault because in 2005 they were considering pulling out of F1 after 2006, I'm not sure he needed that carrot to get Alonso but it's beyond doubt that he promised Alonso #1 status.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I believe Alonso started it with a misplaced belief that the team would revolve around him in the same manner that Renault had done. And when that favoured status didn't materialise he started to try to engineer the situation himself, the most ridiculous example coming at Indy with his demand that Hamilton be ordered to let him past. For Hamilton to react so vehemently to events at Monaco there must have already been some tensions simmering, I wouldn't see it as a rational response even for an unpredictable character as Hamilton.

This is all speculation of course. As I said before none of us really know what went on behind closed doors, this is merely my interpretation of events.

It's perhaps a little known fact that Alonso was able to veto's Hamilton's participation in the Barcelona 4 day test just before the race itself, he requested that his friend and compatriot Pedro de la Rosa attend the test instead, this was mentioned by Anthony Hamilton after the Barcelona race, he wasn't too impressed.

So Monaco was not an out of the blue incident as such, I'm not sure if they also knew that Alonso suggested that Hamilton be stood down from the team before the season started because his inexperience may cost McLaren the WCC title, who would have thought that Alonso would be so concerned about such things?

It's perhaps a little known fact that Alonso was able to veto's Hamilton's participation in the Barcelona 4 day test just before the race itself, he requested that his friend and compatriot Pedro de la Rosa attend the test instead, this was mentioned by Anthony Hamilton after the Barcelona race, he wasn't too impressed.

So Monaco was not an out of the blue incident as such, I'm not sure if they also knew that Alonso suggested that Hamilton be stood down from the team before the season started because his inexperience may cost McLaren the WCC title, who would have thought that Alonso would be so concerned about such things?

who was "they"?

BTW, can we be sure that Anthony Hamilton is a fair source for that info?

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I believe Alonso started it with a misplaced belief that the team would revolve around him in the same manner that Renault had done. And when that favoured status didn't materialise he started to try to engineer the situation himself, the most ridiculous example coming at Indy with his demand that Hamilton be ordered to let him past. For Hamilton to react so vehemently to events at Monaco there must have already been some tensions simmering, I wouldn't see it as a rational response even for an unpredictable character as Hamilton.

This is all speculation of course. As I said before none of us really know what went on behind closed doors, this is merely my interpretation of events.

It's perhaps a little known fact that Alonso was able to veto's Hamilton's participation in the Barcelona 4 day test just before the race itself, he requested that his friend and compatriot Pedro de la Rosa attend the test instead, this was mentioned by Anthony Hamilton after the Barcelona race, he wasn't too impressed.

So Monaco was not an out of the blue incident as such, I'm not sure if they also knew that Alonso suggested that Hamilton be stood down from the team before the season started because his inexperience may cost McLaren the WCC title, who would have thought that Alonso would be so concerned about such things?

Be interesting to see the source for that. But even if true, that just means the attempts to get the public onside and against Alonso started from the Hamilton camp at Barcelona instead of Monaco. And if Alonso did back de La Rosa it's hardly controversial given that so many people questioned McLaren's wisdom in signing a rookie at the time. It's not exactly an outlandish position or one to take real umbrage with

DLR was McLaren's test driver, after all. It could be argued with the cars being so obviously close that his testing experience would have been invaluable anyway. And let's face it, if either Merc or Ferrari hired a complete unknown to partner Hamilton or Vettel today would anybody seriously expect anything other than that the teams would naturally focus on their star driver at the beginning as the one most likely to give them a return? It's difficult to see anything underhand here.

Hamilton started things rolling by using the Press to garner sympathy. Events since have shown us that's a fairly go-to tactic for him. Clearly that ruffled feathers with Alonso and the rest is history

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

Such things have been discussed before regarding Monaco were Hamilton's car was loaded with so much fuel for qualifying that he was unable to get pole, were Hamilton was told they put more fuel in his car because he was on a different strategy to Alonso, a 1 stop opposed to a 2 stop, then they changed Hamilton's strategy to a 2 stop during the race because of concerns about a theoretical SC, all in all that gift wrapped the weekend for Alonso.

Sure, but it wouldn't be the first tie a driver would have been unhappy with his strategy. But Hamilton added extra oomph by publicly declaring he would have beaten Alonso as he was faster than him and that was bound to throw the cat among the pigeons.

Hamilton was the darling of the Press and he learned very early on that he could use that to his advantage. But it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand that publicly dismissing Alonso would be bound to upset him.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I believe Alonso started it with a misplaced belief that the team would revolve around him in the same manner that Renault had done. And when that favoured status didn't materialise he started to try to engineer the situation himself, the most ridiculous example coming at Indy with his demand that Hamilton be ordered to let him past. For Hamilton to react so vehemently to events at Monaco there must have already been some tensions simmering, I wouldn't see it as a rational response even for an unpredictable character as Hamilton.

This is all speculation of course. As I said before none of us really know what went on behind closed doors, this is merely my interpretation of events.

I don't think it's far fetched to think that RD might have implied Alonso was No 1, or that that in itself was somehow something curious. Alonso was a double WDC, while Hamilton at the time was a nobody. You'd expect the team to focus on their star under those circumstances. Where it went wrong IMO was the level of support Alonso was expecting to get and the power of the UK Press to influence things in Hamilton's favour (as opposed to favouritism). But I don't think Alonso wanting/expecting the team to focus on him was "starting" it. By all accounts he felt besieged by the publicity campaign against him and clearly couldn't handle it and no doubt felt that some of the comments made from the Hamilton camp were a direct attack on him

Due to Alonso's poor or badly timed team moves and his reluctance to stay with good teams despite his 2 WDCs I never think of Alonso as a particularly fantastic driver at all. Very much a case of 'so what?'.

Due to Alonso's poor or badly timed team moves and his reluctance to stay with good teams despite his 2 WDCs I never think of Alonso as a particularly fantastic driver at all. Very much a case of 'so what?'.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I am curious too.

In following this thread, do people really doubt that Don likely told Alonso that he would be #1 at McLaren in order to get the 2x reigning WDC to come to the team? Especially as one reads all the "Alonso insists on #1 status" post here in the forum, surely he would have required as much from Dennis?

I doubt it, yes. Knowing Ron as we all do, I imagine he used his finest politician-speak to imply that Alonso would be #1 driver without actually promising anything. Or rather Ron may have simply promised him that he had better prospects of long-term title success at McLaren than at Renault and the rest was just assumptions on Alonso's part. We have no proof of what was and wasn't promised and I'm not prepared to simply take Alonso's word for it.

I honestly don't think it is in Ron's nature to so openly use lies and deception to get his way. He is more subtle than that.

It's not Alonso's word though to be fair it's Whitmarsh who said Ron later admitted to him he promised No.1 status to Alonso.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Maybe they did. Maybe there's more too. Not really going to know until we've read the book, are we?

Not sure what the issue is tbh.

Why do you think I'm making an issue out of it, I'm just stating that non disclosure agreements were signed by both Alonso and McLaren.

Source? And what does the NDA relate to? Spygate? His departure? Everything he said,did or ate from Jan 1st to Dec 31st 2007?

If you don't know any of that then what you're stating doesn't state much worthwhile does it?

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Last edited by Lotus49 on Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yeah but in regard to the discussion it's Alonso's interpretation that counts, since that led to the actions he took which ultimately shaped the rest of his career. Whether he was right to feel that way is another story entirely.

I don't think I'd interpret breaking an agreement as standing your ground, nor would I call publicly throwing accusations at the team after Monaco (and swearing at RD etc) an example of standing your ground. If we're going to run a scale then Alonso absolutely came out tops in the petulant and idiotic behaviour department, but statements from pokerman trying to make out he was wholly innocent of anything are wide of the mark and frankly a whitewashing of what actually happened. I don't think anybody came out of 2007 looking good, tbh

Standing his ground was perhaps the wrong turn of phrase. I'm not portraying Hamilton as innocent in the whole affair, but in simplistic terms the way I see it is Alonso started it but then Hamilton escalated it because otherwise he ran the risk of playing second fiddle for the rest of their time as team mates. Just as has happened with Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari.

Bit nervous about opening a whole other can of worms on this bit I'm a bit curious as to how Alonso started it. IIRC it started with Hamilton kicking off about team orders at Monaco and then Alonso getting all upset that Ron (in his eyes) didn't defend Alonso strongly enough to the UK Press. The "feud," for want of a better word, started there

I believe Alonso started it with a misplaced belief that the team would revolve around him in the same manner that Renault had done. And when that favoured status didn't materialise he started to try to engineer the situation himself, the most ridiculous example coming at Indy with his demand that Hamilton be ordered to let him past. For Hamilton to react so vehemently to events at Monaco there must have already been some tensions simmering, I wouldn't see it as a rational response even for an unpredictable character as Hamilton.

This is all speculation of course. As I said before none of us really know what went on behind closed doors, this is merely my interpretation of events.

I don't think it's far fetched to think that RD might have implied Alonso was No 1, or that that in itself was somehow something curious. Alonso was a double WDC, while Hamilton at the time was a nobody. You'd expect the team to focus on their star under those circumstances. Where it went wrong IMO was the level of support Alonso was expecting to get and the power of the UK Press to influence things in Hamilton's favour (as opposed to favouritism). But I don't think Alonso wanting/expecting the team to focus on him was "starting" it. By all accounts he felt besieged by the publicity campaign against him and clearly couldn't handle it and no doubt felt that some of the comments made from the Hamilton camp were a direct attack on him

To be honest I don't recall much of a UK media campaign against Alonso until after the Hungary incident. Of course they were very pro-Hamilton right from the start but I don't remember Alonso being portrayed as the villain until much later on. What were these comments to the media from the Hamilton camp? I can't recall anything like that and Google has not provided any answers.

I think this comment from Ron Dennis shows the root of the problem. If that was Alonso's attitude to Hamilton prior to the season then is it any wonder that he lashed out in response to being beaten in some of those early races?https://www.crash.net/f1/news/161435/1/ ... ton-a-risk

It's not Alonso's word though to be fair it's Whitmarsh who said Ron later admitted to him he promised No.1 status to Alonso.

I was not aware of that but if true then I am more inclined to believe it. However we still don't know what exactly this promised "number 1 status" entailed because there are many varying degrees to which a driver can be favoured. McLaren under Ron Dennis were not averse to playing favourites with drivers but never to the extent of what Alonso had at Renault. So again, was it just Alonso having unrealistic expectations of what was being promised to him given his own past experience of what "number 1 status" means?